Are We Going Back? Why We Can’t Afford to Get Reading Wrong Again

Learning from past mistakes to ensure the Science of Reading becomes lasting change, not just another fad.

One of the questions I hear often when I’m out in schools is this:

“Isn’t the Science of Reading just a fad? Won’t the pendulum swing back? Didn't we already do this?”

I’ll be honest: these questions scare me. Because the truth is, we’ve never really had it fully right. At different times in history, we’ve had pieces of it—sometimes rich content, sometimes phonics, but never the full picture woven together. And if we don’t get it right this time, the balanced literacy camps—the Lucy Calkins, the Fountas and Pinnells of the world—will be waiting in the wings, ready to say, “See? We told you so.”

When I first started teaching more than 20 years ago, balanced literacy and guided reading were everywhere. We were told to group students by level, use leveled texts, and teach isolated skills. I went along because I didn’t know any different—and because my administrators expected it. But I also remember the older teachers in my building. Some resisted the shift. I can still hear them saying, “This isn’t how you teach reading. This isn’t how kids really learn.” At the time, I brushed it off. I was new, and they seemed old-fashioned.

When people ask me if we’re “going back,” I find myself remembering those teachers from 20 years ago. What were they doing that did not want to let go of? Was it better than balanced literacy? To answer that, I decided to go straight to a source. I spoke with a retired teacher who taught through that period and left the profession the same year I began. His reflections were eye-opening.

Looking Back: Teaching Reading in the 1990s

The teacher I spoke with taught for 25 years, most of them in fifth grade. He described his classroom in the 1990s as rooted in whole language. Instruction was built around thematic units, often tied to science and social studies. Whole-class novels like Hatchet, Island of the Blue Dolphins, and Bridge to Terabithia anchored the year.

Every student read the same book. He read aloud, students took turns, and comprehension packets guided discussion. Independent reading was differentiated by book choice, but leveled groups weren’t part of his practice—he avoided them because he didn’t want to spotlight student differences. The focus was on immersion in literature and learning through context.

The Shift Toward Balanced Literacy

When balanced literacy began to arrive, he remembers it as “one more program” layered on top of what teachers were already doing. Guided reading, leveled texts, and running records were pushed into classrooms. The Rigby series suddenly arrived in his classroom.

He admitted he resisted. After years of refining his own practice, he wasn’t convinced new materials would improve outcomes. What stood out to him most wasn’t the programs themselves but the strain between teachers and administrators. Many felt they were being forced into compliance rather than invited into growth. As he put it, “Change for the sake of change was not always a positive.”

So, Are We Going Back?

Like everything in education, the answer isn’t as simple as “yes” or “no.”

In some ways, yes—we are reclaiming practices that worked. We’re tying texts to content areas. We’re using complex, grade-level texts to challenge all students. We’re building background knowledge across a wide range of topics, ensuring both depth and breadth.

But we’re not going back to whole language or balanced literacy. Both approaches shared a fatal flaw: they left out explicit, systematic instruction in word recognition. And here’s what we now know:

Learning to read is not a natural process. It demands explicit, systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency—alongside vocabulary and knowledge-building. Equally important, teachers must be equipped with a deep understanding of how the brain learns to read and the instructional practices that best support that development. Without this foundation, programs risk becoming empty scripts, and students lose out on the expert guidance they deserve.

The science of reading is not about returning to old methods or simply adopting the latest program. It is about elevating teacher expertise, reshaping systems, and aligning everyday instruction with decades of research on how children truly learn to read.

Learning From the Past

This work is hard. It is complex, often messy, and it takes a tremendous amount of time and persistence. But it is time well spent—because nothing matters more than ensuring that every child has the ability to read. That’s why our work in Kingston City Schools has been so intentional. We want other districts to learn not only from what has gone well, but also from the missteps we’ve faced along the way. The more children who learn to read, the stronger our communities and society become.

We have been deliberate about building change with our teachers, not at them. Instead of “rolling out one more program,” we’ve focused on creating the systems and supports that allow real reform to take hold:

• Collaboration: Professional learning communities with protected time for teachers to analyze data, discuss student progress, and plan instruction together. This shared ownership of student outcomes strengthens both practice and morale.

• Relationships: Trust is the foundation of change. Teachers need to know that leaders are not imposing quick fixes but are committed partners in the process. We have worked to create open lines of communication, respond to concerns, and acknowledge the challenges teachers face. Without strong relationships, even the best-designed reforms will falter.

• Teacher voice and choice: The people doing the daily work must help shape how change is implemented. By elevating teacher voices in decision-making, we create a culture where teachers feel empowered rather than dictated to—and where they are more willing to take risks and try new approaches.

• Sustained professional learning: True reform requires more than training in a new program. Teachers need deep knowledge of how the brain learns to read and the instructional practices that support that development. They need to understand how to identify reading difficulties, how to provide targeted intervention, and how to adapt instruction when students struggle. Building this level of professional expertise takes time, ongoing support, and repeated opportunities to apply new learning in practice.

Systemwide literacy reform will never be quick or easy—but it is possible. The key is not forcing compliance, but investing in relationships, building teacher knowledge, and creating collaborative structures that last. With strong leadership support, change doesn’t just take root—it thrives.

And just as importantly, we must think about the future: leading literacy means shaping future literacy leaders. The work cannot depend on one person or one moment in time. It must be built in ways that ensure it carries on—sustained, strengthened, and passed down. I’ll share more about how we’re cultivating future literacy leadership in next week’s blog.

Conclusion

The pendulum isn’t swinging back—it’s moving forward. The science of reading is about combining the best of what we know now—explicit, systematic word instruction and rich content knowledge—and aligning it with the science of how the brain learns to read.

Because reading is more than a school subject. It is a life skill—one that determines whether a child can access opportunity, advocate for themselves, and fully participate in society. Reading is the great equalizer. It closes gaps, disrupts cycles of poverty, and builds pathways to futures once thought out of reach.

When we get literacy right, we don’t just raise scores—we raise futures. We create confident learners, engaged citizens, and adults who contribute to their communities. That is the true promise of the science of reading.

But here’s the reality: if we don’t get this right, the balanced l

iteracy camps—the Lucys, the Fountas and Pinnells—will be ready to step back in and claim that evidence-based reform was just another failed fad. We cannot let that happen. We have to work together—teachers, administrators, policymakers, and families—to learn from our shared mistakes and commit to lasting change.

And just as importantly, this work is not about one leader, one district, or one initiative. Leading literacy means shaping future literacy leaders—ensuring the work carries on long after the current wave of reform. That’s how we sustain change, safeguard progress, and guarantee that every child has the right to read—not just today, but for generations to come.

We’re not just teaching kids to read books. We’re teaching them to read their world. And that’s not a fad. That’s a foundation—for equity, for opportunity, and for a stronger, more just society.

When we know better, we teach better.

See you next Sunday!

References

Catts, H. W., & Hogan, T. P. (2021). Language foundations for reading intervention: Research-based practices. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/0938-8982.00020

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.

Moats, L. C. (2020). Teaching reading is rocket science, 2020: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers.

Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110). Guilford Press.

Shanahan, T. (2020). Disciplinary literacy in action: How to create and sustain a school-wide culture of deep reading, writing, and thinking. Corwin.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Academy Press.